4 hours ago, mrtwister said:

I assumed this was correct. Viney (twice) and Watts got done for this on the weekend yet it stank of inconsistency when the very same call didn't seem to apply to the Doggies.

If you get it wrong, that's fine. As long as you get it wrong consistently.

The same umpire usually interprets it the same way - it usually the 3 different umpires have different interpretations

1 hour ago, Umpire Please said:

Simple solution  would be have the umpires set up in umpiring teams, Goal umpires, boundary and field. They are set up as a  team and stay together from the  start of the season and umpire together for the whole season. As such they would become use to the way each of  their team mates  interprets the rules and you would hope there would be more consistency on game day.

One has a bad game and they all go back to the state or bush leagues until they show they can umpire to to agreed level.

It makes sense - we talk about how about it is for a team to gel together and the more they play together the more cohesive they get - the same must surely apply to umpires - An umpire who constantly sees his cohort giving leniency or no leniency, giving an extra second to dispose or being quick on the whistle can then adjust to umpire the same way. The more time they spend umpiring together, you would think, the better the consistency. 

I favour getting rid of prior opportunity all together. At the moment, it gives carte blanche for players to take the ball, simply clutch it to their chest and accept the tackle, knowing that they'll get a ball up and can reset.

Forget it. If you're tackled, you immediately have to get rid of the ball correctly - or make a legitimate attempt. This will keep the ball moving, open things up, reduce the number of ball ups. Yes, if you take the ball and are immediately tackled well by someone you didn't see coming, you're pinged - unless you punch or kick it away. Good enough for me.

Another rule on the fly:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-05-19/evans-clarifies-rules-confirms-ball-role

• Interchanges for blood rule reasons for both players leaving and returning to the field will be exempt once the interchange cap of 90 has been reached.

I can see a lot of exhausted players finding a scab to pick.

1 hour ago, Demonised said:

I favour getting rid of prior opportunity all together. At the moment, it gives carte blanche for players to take the ball, simply clutch it to their chest and accept the tackle, knowing that they'll get a ball up and can reset.

Forget it. If you're tackled, you immediately have to get rid of the ball correctly - or make a legitimate attempt. This will keep the ball moving, open things up, reduce the number of ball ups. Yes, if you take the ball and are immediately tackled well by someone you didn't see coming, you're pinged - unless you punch or kick it away. Good enough for me.

You will create a game with players not willing to pick up the ball and teams full of lurkers  - players who will just wait for the opposition to pick up the ball so they can tackle.

1 hour ago, Demonised said:

I favour getting rid of prior opportunity all together. At the moment, it gives carte blanche for players to take the ball, simply clutch it to their chest and accept the tackle, knowing that they'll get a ball up and can reset.

Forget it. If you're tackled, you immediately have to get rid of the ball correctly - or make a legitimate attempt. This will keep the ball moving, open things up, reduce the number of ball ups. Yes, if you take the ball and are immediately tackled well by someone you didn't see coming, you're pinged - unless you punch or kick it away. Good enough for me.

i think the push in the back has largely already been tweaked as umpires are awake to this (mostly). additionally tacklers have come a little smarter by rotating player as they tackle from behind

1 hour ago, sue said:

Another rule on the fly:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-05-19/evans-clarifies-rules-confirms-ball-role

• Interchanges for blood rule reasons for both players leaving and returning to the field will be exempt once the interchange cap of 90 has been reached.

I can see a lot of exhausted players finding a scab to pick.

doubt it. in fact i;ve noticed quite a few teams finish the game with plenty of interchanges left (which surprised me)

1 hour ago, Demonised said:

I favour getting rid of prior opportunity all together. At the moment, it gives carte blanche for players to take the ball, simply clutch it to their chest and accept the tackle, knowing that they'll get a ball up and can reset.

Forget it. If you're tackled, you immediately have to get rid of the ball correctly - or make a legitimate attempt. This will keep the ball moving, open things up, reduce the number of ball ups. Yes, if you take the ball and are immediately tackled well by someone you didn't see coming, you're pinged - unless you punch or kick it away. Good enough for me.

The problem with that is you end up with players not wanting to take possesion. 

30 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

doubt it. in fact i;ve noticed quite a few teams finish the game with plenty of interchanges left (which surprised me)

At the moment they are probably leaving a few up their sleeves in case of a blood incident (and late injury).   If blood no longer counts against interchanges, clubs will adjust and I would not be surprised if self inflicted injuries are used to exceed the supposed cap (still leaving maybe one for late injuries).  

(Also clubs sometimes don't get to use the full allocation because they can't get the player they want on back on.)

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

You will create a game with players not willing to pick up the ball and teams full of lurkers  - players who will just wait for the opposition to pick up the ball so they can tackle.

Can't see that happening. Our game would still reward the skilful, hard possession and disposal.

53 minutes ago, Chris said:

The problem with that is you end up with players not wanting to take possesion. 

Can't see that happening. Players standing around looking at each other? Our game would still reward the skilful, hard possession and disposal. If someone takes possession, is tackled correctly they'd still have two opportunities - dispose of it correctly or attempt to dispose of it correctly. The balance is still in favour of the player going for the ball, not the lurker waiting to tackle.

52 minutes ago, Demonised said:

Can't see that happening. Players standing around looking at each other? Our game would still reward the skilful, hard possession and disposal. If someone takes possession, is tackled correctly they'd still have two opportunities - dispose of it correctly or attempt to dispose of it correctly. The balance is still in favour of the player going for the ball, not the lurker waiting to tackle.

It will just mean the tackler will hold the ball in and get the free, just like now but worse. The other thung that would happen is people would just drop the ball when tackled and then throw a fist or foot in the general diection of the ball, just like now but worse as players can do this at anytime not just when they are grabbed without opportunity. 

3 hours ago, sue said:

Another rule on the fly:

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-05-19/evans-clarifies-rules-confirms-ball-role

• Interchanges for blood rule reasons for both players leaving and returning to the field will be exempt once the interchange cap of 90 has been reached.

I can see a lot of exhausted players finding a scab to pick.

Why is blood rule different from injury?

55 minutes ago, Chris said:

It will just mean the tackler will hold the ball in and get the free, just like now but worse. The other thung that would happen is people would just drop the ball when tackled and then throw a fist or foot in the general diection of the ball, just like now but worse as players can do this at anytime not just when they are grabbed without opportunity. 

Nope. As the rules currently say, ball held in --> ball up.

Just dropping the ball and throwing a fist/foot at it? And why not? At least it keeps the thing moving.

21 hours ago, The Reverend said:

Wow, it's so obvious the way he hooks his arm under the tackler's arm and deliberately lifts it up. C'mon umps, you've gotta be smarter than this.

umps....smarter....than what? Amoeba?

 

21 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

On 360 they showed a compilation of Dogs "throws" from the weekend.  There was only one that was a throw, I think it was Dahlhaus scooping it out the back to Bont. The rest were fine, just very quick hands. There was one where the older  (Hunter?) held the ball for a handball and punched with the top of his knuckles instead of the thumb side of his fist. There is nothing wrong with this according to the rules as the rules state you must hold the ball in one hand and hit it with a clenched fist from the other. It doesn't say which side of the fist you must hit with. It's essentially a modified flick pass but with the laws of the game. 

I also agree the dropping the knees searching for a high tackle is dicing with severe injury. There is a reason the high tackle is banned it is to protect the player going for the ball. The rules state that a player with the ball who drives his head into a stationary or near stationary target will be deemed to have had prior opportunity. Pay a couple of holding the balls against these players (Dylan Grimes is another culprit) and they'll stop doing it. Someone will get injured/paralysed playing for free kicks and the AFL will have noone to blame but themselves. 

Exactly....but imagine the knee jerk reaction from HQ.   It will soon become no contact allowed, like AusKick under 8s.

10 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

Agreed Macca - except the AFL uses slow motion footage to suit it's arguments in a tribunal situation and it does it for one reason - because trial by media is occurring via that same footage. They aren't actually adjudicating the incident, they are now adjudicating the instance of said incident in the public realm.

Since there is no way around this in real time the least the AFL can do is come out after these ducking/dropping incidences and create a warning system for the players. McLean - you took a dive on the weekend - thats a 1st warning. 3 strikes and you get suspended. Just like they do with fines for rough play.

3 weeks into that rule and the problem would go away. No competitive athlete wants to be the first player suspended for ducking.

 

 

 

 

Good idea, but I can't see the AFL ever taking that one on.  A bit like their "clamp down on staging" a few years ago.....absolutely nothing ever happened.

24 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Why is blood rule different from injury?

Because leaving the field is mandatory for blood rule, optional for injury.

25 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Why is blood rule different from injury?

guess runners and trainers will now carry small cachets of fake blood. you know it makes sense 

3 hours ago, Demonised said:

Can't see that happening. Players standing around looking at each other? Our game would still reward the skilful, hard possession and disposal. If someone takes possession, is tackled correctly they'd still have two opportunities - dispose of it correctly or attempt to dispose of it correctly. The balance is still in favour of the player going for the ball, not the lurker waiting to tackle.

It was happening several years ago.

On 5/16/2016 at 11:47 AM, Clint Bizkit said:

I don't, but I concede it is a massive grey area.

Again, it all depends on if a player has had prior opportunity or not.

Yep, this is the area of the most inconsistency IMO.

1. At one extreme end, you see the ones where the tackler genuinely knocks the ball out of the carrier's hands. (Which has always been called play-on)

2. At the other extreme end, you see a player actively and deliberately let go of the ball. (Which was the original definition of a throw) 

Most tackles fit somewhere in-between those and it can very difficult to decide. In the last 2 years, it appears that the instruction to the umps has been to adjudicate more of them as no.2 where-as in the past the majority of them would have been no.1.

The other grey area is the definition of an attempt to dispose of the ball correctly, especially in circumstances where a player gets tackled and then it's stacks-on-the-mill, but also because an attempted (but unsuccessful) kick or handball can look exactly the same as a throw.

And finally, the period of time that constitutes "prior opportunity" is now just a fraction of a second. The incident against WB where Jetta tackled Redpath(?) is a classic example where he had the ball in his hands for about 1/2 a second, I can't believe Redpath was pinged for that one.

Of course it doesn't help when you have Brian Taylor and other commentators appealing for holding the ball at every second tackle and shouting out "dropping the ball" or "incorrect disposal" all the time. And then they bleat about "rewarding the tackler" FFS! Howa bout rewarding the ball winner? The only two actual rules are "holding the ball" and "throwing the ball" - the other terms are just descriptors or clauses within the HTB rule and it doesn't help the public's football knowledge when the buffoon commentators can't get it right.

AFAIK, HTB was originally part of the rules to reduce the number of ball-ups caused by players trying to bullock through 18 tackles. Apart from the ones where the players get pinged for "dragging it in", it more often than not actually stops the game that was still moving because players are getting pinged every time they are tackled and the ball spills free. 

I cannot stand watching players throw it and get away with it. It turns the game into a different sport and it gets spotted by umpires 10% of the time.

Also when players pull up and wait for the other player to pick it up and then tackle them. The league looks like the under 9's sometimes to be honest. Players used to go at the ball far harder before the contact below the knees [censored] came in. 

Additionally, the marking rule where you nudge a player and they get a free kick for the slightest of contact? Since when has 'eyes off the ball' been a written rule? I can't stand this because they will pay it in marking contests, and the ruck as well, yet when midfielders are around the ball at stoppages and similar "eyes on the man" blocking happens regularly. They say it's about having a fair run at the ball in marking contests but if that's the case why don't midfielders get a "fair run" at the ball when there's a stoppage? These inconsistencies stop me from enjoying the game these days